End the unfairness of official bilingualism. Stop wasting our tax dollars.

03 August 2017

Descrimination in Quebec

This is an interesting article that focuses on the minorities in Quebec. Not just the English-speaking minorities but the racial minorities, the latter given more focus, naturally, as racism is a far bigger social crime in the modern Western civilization that has allowed the UN to promote the Cult of the Minority. Modern social thoughts on Democracy has identified that the rights of minorities far outweigh the rights of majorities; after all, the majority can always use their voting strength in the ballot box to look after their own interests.

This works only if the majority is informed enough to know that the funding given to minorities give them the advantage of being able to organize & be heard. This advantage is denied to the majority (about any issue) & so they have to resort to go begging for funding from the public. As we know, the general public is tapped out from the large number of charities begging for help so that when organizations that want to fight for the majorities ask for support, the well is dry!!

As an organization, Canadians for Language Fairness is concerned about the English-speaking majority having a voice We hear from many public servants who contact us, begging not to let their story go public because of the fear of harassment & retribution from their Francophone bosses. We feel for them because we know what they're going through & we know that there are 100's of thousands of English-speaking public servants who have to keep their heads down & pretend that everything is OK. After all, a job with the public service pays far more than the private sector (at least 15% more for the same kind of work) so keeping quiet seems the most intelligent thing to do. No point challenging this in the courts because we know where their sympathy lie - definitely not with the majority!!

So, what about appealing to the politicians for help? Again, this is a door shut in our faces because the 1982 Constitution with its built-in Socialist agenda has made it well-nigh impossible for any politician of any stripe to dare to speak for the Silent Majority unless they want to commit political suicide.

However, we still carry on, regardless of how difficult it is to be heard. We have attracted the attention of outspoken commentators like Howard Galganov, Jurgen Vollrath, Jean-Serge Brisson & hopefully, some fledging political parties which feel that it is time that the beleaguered English-speaking majority is heard. Jurgen Vollrath's show on Friday, July 27th, was fabulous. His special guests were Beth Trudeau, our very special Spokes-person; Joan Seeley from N.B.; Claire Dykeman from the Citizen’s Action Team in NB (C.A.T. for short) & Sharon Buchanan, President - Anglophones Rights Association of NB.

Been hearing lately about “systemic discrimination?” Wondering what that is?

Here’s one example:

In April, the Conference Board of Canada think tank published a report suggesting that Quebec was second only to New Brunswick among the provinces in quality of life. In a few areas, however, this province ranked at or near the bottom. One of them was the racial wage gap.

That’s what the report defined as “the percentage difference in full-year, full-time median wages and salaries between university-educated Canadian-born visible minorities and Caucasians.”

This excludes a lack of recognized qualifications or language skills on the part of immigrants as factors, and ensures that the individuals whose wages are compared have attained similar levels of education.

In Quebec, the racial wage gap was 19.7 per cent.

That’s a discriminatory outcome, whether or not it results from any intent to discriminate. And that’s systemic discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission says systemic discrimination can result not only from individual behaviour but also from “the unintended and often unconscious consequences of a discriminatory system.”

It’s “patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the structure of an organization, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage for racialized persons.”

Educating the public about unintentional discrimination is one reason why a public inquiry, such as the one on systemic discrimination and racism jointly announced last week by the Couillard government and the Quebec human rights commission, can be useful.

There are legitimate concerns about the consultation. Information on participation in the hearings to be held in the fall is available in French only. The human rights commission and the government have ignored the need for information in English, even though English-speaking visible minorities may face particular discrimination because of language.

The Parti Québécois has criticized the government for holding the consultation instead of acting, and has proposed 20 measures to combat discrimination in employment, housing and other areas.

And some people fear that the hearings, to be conducted by regional organizations with no experience in such matters, could get out of hand. They fear a divisive repetition of the hearings of the Bouchard-Taylor commission on religious accommodations.

The PQ has accused the Liberal government of staging the hearings on discrimination, to be followed by an “action plan” next spring, for partisan purposes before the general election due by October 2018.

Yet the PQ itself, competing with the Coalition Avenir Québec party for nationalist support, has politicized the consultation by exploiting it as an opportunity to practise more identity politics.

Saying the consultation amounts to “putting Quebecers on trial”— as if the victims of discrimination are not Quebecers themselves — the PQ again posed as the defender of the majority against minorities.

And it’s hard to see how the Liberals might gain any partisan advantage from the consultation.

Since the Liberals have held power for all but 19 months in the last 14 years, they risk being blamed for inaction against discrimination reported in the consultation.

And if the Liberal action plan includes measures the PQ has already proposed, the latter can take credit for proposing them first, before the consultation.

Some people, sensitive to accusations that Quebecers are especially xenophobic or racist, fear that the consultation will provide ammunition for “Quebec bashing” by outsiders, i.e., people who are not French-speaking Quebecers.

Yet, only six years ago, Quebecers had the courage to pressure a previous Liberal government into holding the Charbonneau inquiry to expose corruption in the province’s construction industry. And this was after their province had already been branded in English Canada in a Maclean’s magazine cover story as “the most corrupt province in Canada.”

Like corruption in construction, discrimination exists everywhere, not only in Quebec. In holding a consultation on discrimination, this province is merely following the lead of Ontario.

Quebec is the better for having gone through the Charbonneau inquiry. It will survive this one.

The problems of uncontrolled immigration into host countries by immigrants who do not share the culture of the host countries is a problem facing many developed countries (mainly in Western civilization). Here is Douglas Murray from UK who is concerned with this problem.